Monday, August 23, 2010

The `offensive' argument

Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy? To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is "offensive," and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument. You are even allowed to admit, as does (Anti-Defamation League head Abraham) Foxman, that the ground for taking offense is "irrational and bigoted." But, hey—why think when you can just feel?

Posted at 10:03:30 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

---Good for Hitchens, whom I don't often agree with. "Freedom of religion" does not mean "freedom for all religions except those we really, really don't like."

Hitchens is quite correct. And the left would do well to remember his sentiment in cases such as this: from the Chicago Tribune.

University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs

Published July 09, 2010
| Associated Press
URBANA, Ill. -- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.... But hey why think when you can just feel.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm not totally conversant with that particular controversy (and the guy was rehired, as I recall) but in general, yes, I happen to agree with critics of suffocating campus speech codes.

----To Richard Monehan: Without taking a stand on why this particular professor no longer has a job, I will say that the two situations aren't parallel at all. The professor was using his religion as the basis for ragging on gays. That's what was offensive. The only way the situations would be equivalent is if the U of I blocked a Catholic church or chapel from being built because it disagreed with the Catholic position on gays (or whatever).

I have to say, Abraham Foxman gave the worst excuse ever when he said Jews were sometimes entitled to be bigoted because of the Holocaust. On the contrary, I'd think Foxman would know full well the consequences, ugliness, and pure lunacy of bigotry.

This mosque flap is that - bigotry, only occasionally masked as sensitivity. However, I have a feeling if a liberal says something shouldn't be done because it's insensitive, those same anti-mosque people would accuse the liberal of being, well, a bleeding-heart, overly sensitive wimp.

Here is how Howell described the statements that led to his firing. He reportedly summed up the position of the Church in the following way:

“A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”

He says that he sent an e-mail to students to try “to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would. This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”

A complaint was filed by a student who was not enrolled in his class but insisted that he was writing on behalf of a student who wanted to remain anonymous.......

I agree with Hitchens and his column makes an excellent point that I agree with but wasn't able to convey well enough in another thread. Here's the money quote "We need not automatically assume the good faith of those who have borrowed this noble name for a project in lower Manhattan. One would want assurances, also, about the transparency of its funding and the content of its educational programs. But the way to respond to such overtures is by critical scrutiny and engagement, not cheap appeals to parochialism, victimology, and unreason."

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of the motives of the muslim organizers or being critical about controversial aspects of the project. However, if it's done the wrong way, it detracts from the valid points that are being made by critics.

---MCN: Most liberals I know are against speech codes. I would not subscribe to the notion that speech codes is hugely advocated by liberals. What happened to Howell was particularly loathsome, which I and my fellow liberals condemned.

The issue that I keep circling back to is that there is a certain amount of symbolism in the location of the proposed mosque/center. The leaders themselves have commented on the symbolism, they have said something along the lines that they want to build at that site to replace a symbol of Muslim extremism with one of Muslim faith.
I sort of understand the impulse. As a Roman Catholic I found myself turning back to the Church after the priest sex abuse scandal. I wanted to stand as a counterpoint to the negativity heaped on the faith that has been a source of beauty and comfort to me and, in a way, repay the universal debt because I can't escape the fact the men who behaved in this horrible way evolved out of my tradition. But there are probably misguided ways to reach out that people could conjure up that I wouldn't support not because the federal, state or local government intervention but out of decency and respect.
I think that sometimes issues like this come about because of hyper-sensitivity. But sometimes I think it's best to remember that when people are involved feelings-as irrational though they might be-are involved and need to be acknowledged.

Why have the majority of newspapers refused to print Mohammed cartoons?

Because it is offensive? Why have they so easily caved on the first amendment? Because of fear?

Zorn and Stantis ought to draw competing Mohammed cartoons on this issue. Oh, but that would be offensive.

ZORN REPLY -- Not to speak for Scott, but I believe he and I are both in agreement that the western media should not have caved in to this and, as one, should have had an "I am Spartacus" moment of defiance to assert our commitment to freedom of expression, even expression that offends.
Without such unity, however, it becomes a very dangerous gesture. If you don't believe me, try putting a poster-sized, labeled drawing of Mohammed on your front lawn, then let us know how that goes for you.
The final question has to do with the relevance of your point...you want we should lower ourselves to THIS pathetic standard of freedom?

---"ZORN REPLY -- Not to speak for Scott, but I believe he and I are both in agreement that the western media should not have caved in to this and, as one, should have had an "I am Spartacus" moment of defiance to assert our commitment to freedom of expression, even expression that offends.
Without such unity, however, it becomes a very dangerous gesture. If you don't believe me, try putting a poster-sized, labeled drawing of Mohammed on your front lawn, then let us know how that goes for you.
The final question has to do with the relevance of your point...you want we should lower ourselves to THIS pathetic standard of freedom?"

No, the point is not to lower ourselves. The point is that the much of the pontification on the mosque issue is hard to stomach when you wouldn't even stand up for the freedom of speech. You have just accepted that it is a dangerous gesture. Oh well ... freedom of speech is not that important. What are you willing to give up next? Why haven't the media challenged those wanting to build the mosque about the double standard of asking for understanding while not offering the same to others? Why not challenge those same leaders to come out and offer unqualified support for freedom of expression?

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.